Skip to main content
1:00 am
for anybody who missed this, i wanted to turn to the good news i got today from the white house. i'm not going to be deported. well, not yet anyway. you undoubtedly know radio host alex jones is the man behind the petition to kick me out of america for my views on gun control. today the white house official live responded to that petition. press secretary jay carney said and i quote, let's not let arguments over the constitution's second amendment violate the first of its first. so, america, i'm afraid the bad news for you is i'm going to be sticking around. the good news, of course, is for
1:01 am
those back in britain who won't have to have me back. that's all for us tonight." ac360" start now. have to have me back. that's all for us tonight." as c36 starts now. we begin with vital news. news about a man whose courage is inspiring. for years he has raised his voice in syria. for more than a year he defied the dictator insisting in using his own name in interviews, talking about crimes he has seen the regime commit. he has done this knowing full well that the regime that killed, tort chored and killed so many could silence him. months ago i asked him why he was risking his life by talking, risking his life by insisting we actually broadcast his name. broadcast his name.
1:02 am
>> when i chant i want freedom. i can hear my voice for the first time in my life. now, how can i give up this? even if it costs me my life. >> imagine that, a grown adult hearing his voice for the very first time. three weeks ago syrian secret police arrested him and his brother. today we got great news. we learned he has been freed. he said he had became seriously ill and was close to death. his brother remains in custody and he and his family fear for his safety. he said he last saw his brothers eight days ago and he was in good spirits. you can go to his facebook page to find out about his brother's condition and how to help secure his release. he thanks everyone and hopes to keep the story in the public eye. now, keeping them honest. the one true thing about the gun debate at home is neither side
1:03 am
has a monopoly on the truth or the facts. one side has research showing when people are allowed to carry concealed weapons, violent crimes go down. newer studies cast doubt on that conclusion. the bottom line trying to find a way to solve the problem would be hard enough even if this wasn't an emotionally charged subject. with the shortage of facts and a surplus of victims and loss, it has become an issue of competing articles of faith. >> the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. >> well, that one view, more guns in more places, here is the other. >> and when it comes to preventing future acts of violence in our schools, let me say this. more guns are not the answer. >> that was connecticut governor dan malloy, his view, and wayne lapierre, from the nra, ring
1:04 am
true to a whole lot of people, that is because each side can point to real-life gun incidents to prove their point. in a few moments, we will talk with general mcchrystal and his views. first, randy kaye. take a look. >> reporter: if you wonder whether or not good people armed with guns really do help stop more gun violence, look no further than the shooting inside this san antonio theater in december. around 9:30, december 17th, 19-year-old jesus manuel garcia allegedly opened fire at the china garden restaurant. investigators say he was targeting his ex-girlfriend who worked there. police say when the employees fled, the shooter chased after them in the parks lot, firing at them. in the chaos, he also shot at a san antonio patrol car after the officer shined a light on him. >> he was having a difficult time dealing with the breakup, and that is what may have set him off to come over here and
1:05 am
commit this act. >> reporter: garcia then followed the restaurant employees into the movie theater next door. the gunman kept shooting as panicked moviegoers poured out the exit doors. >> could have died, you know? and i'm glad i'm okay and i have another day with my son. >> reporter: one of the fleeing patrons was wounded. but so many may have died, had it not been for the quick-thinking off-duty security guard. the security guard happened to be working security at the theater and ran towards the sound of the shooting. when castianno spotted the suspect coming out of the bathroom with his gun drawn, she shot him four times. >> that was really nerve-racking, and -- it was -- i'm not going to lie. it was frightening. but you know, the training kicks in.
1:06 am
>> reporter: garcia, the suspect, is charged with attempted capital murder and has not yet entered a plea. he survived, but more importantly, so did everybody else in the movie theater. thanks to one of the good guys with a gun. but as we all know not every shooting incident ends like the one in san antonio. those in favor of tighter gun controls may argue that good guy with a gun scenarios can make a bad situation even worse. take what happened in arizona. january 8, 2011, when a lone gunman opened fire on congresswoman gabrielle giffords at a community event. while jared loughner was spraying gifford and the crowds with bullets, an innocent bystander was in a nearby drugstore buying cigarettes. when he heard the gunfire, he ran to the scene, legally armed with a pistol. by the time he arrived his safety was off and he was poised to fire. trouble is, he almost shot the wrong man. zamudio on fox news.
1:07 am
>> as i approached the people wrestling with them, one of the other gentleman had gotten the gun away from him. and that is what i saw first, was him holding the gun. and i had my hand on my pistol. >> reporter: he has says he is incredibly lucky that he didn't shoot. listen to what he told msnbc. >> i saw another individual holding the firearm, i kind of assumed he was the shooter. so i grabbed his wrist, told him to drop it, forced him to drop the gun on the ground. when he did that, everybody said no, no, it was this guy. i would have shot him. i would have shot the man holding the gun. >> reporter: the man he almost shot was the real hero, who tackled the shooter and wrestled his gun away from him. two very different shooters, two armed bystanders to the rescue, and the debate continues. randi kaye, cnn, new york. >> and the debate is growing, vice president joe biden meets tomorrow with the nra, gabrielle giffords and her husband, kelly,
1:08 am
both gun owners setting up a lobby group to press for new laws. new york's governor today called for his state to enact the toughest assault reps ban in the nation, period. his challenge sparking protests from gun advocacy groups. on monday, it will be four weeks since the sandy hook shooting. more on the perspective from margaret hoover, and peter barnhart and jeffrey toobin. jeffrey t is different seeing these two reports and these two different incidents, it is sort of a rorschach test, it is a tough debate on how this task force is. >> if you notice, the first story was about a police officer, she happened to be not on duty. she was a police officer, no one disagrees that police officers should have guns, and she said her training kicked in. i bet you guys looked long and hard for a story like that. but the one you saw doesn't do any damage to the pro-gun argument, because it was a
1:09 am
police officer. i don't think anyone is arguing that police officers, perhaps even off-duty police officers should be armed. the second one is the actual situation that you get when you have lots and lots of individuals running around trying to play vigilante. >> it is interesting, there were others e-mailing us, saying we were afraid to tell that story, because they point to us as a sign that people being armed is a good idea, kind of to address the conspira speear theories. you actually say there is more common ground and the thing that is the president could do that the nra would actually give thumbs up to. what do you see? >> the truth is i'm much less interested in the politics than the policies that can come from it. the president has taken a lot of flack from people like mayor mro bloomberg for not doing enough
1:10 am
on gun control. but there are things like enforcement. 77,000 people have lied on criminal background checks on whether they could legally obtain a gun. they have been identified by the fbi, turned over by the justice department, and not processed. the administration could say prosecute people who are lying on their background checks. there are also the national instant criminal background check mechanism, is not fully funded by the federal government, but could be. and that would prevent people like the shooter at virginia tech who had a mental illness in his background, would have registered him. when he went to buy his gun, it would have sent a red flag there is a mental illness in the background, maybe he shouldn't be legally able to buy a gun. there are things the federal government can do, fully-funded programs that are already in existence, that the nra wouldn't necessarily disagree with. >> i totally disagree. there is no common ground in this argument. >> what? >> the nra, there is zero common ground. the national rifle association and most of the united states congress is against any sort of regulation of guns, period. i mean -- >> that is simply not true. david keen on this channel, on cnn, says he is in favor of not
1:11 am
letting people who have mental illness to be registered in this -- >> but he also wants the gun show loophole, which allows 40% of people not to go through any background check. >> then actually register anybody with a mental illness, or register people which is -- that is a nonstarter -- you can't have a data base of people who owns guns, but a data base of anybody who receives psychiatric counseling? how is that going to work? >> i don't think that is what it saying, but to say there is absolutely no common ground is defeating the purpose of this exercise. i think the american public wants us to find common ground. you know, the nra leadership defers to the nra membership. there are reasonable americans who are responsible gun owners, like gabrielle giffords and her husband. they are willing to make reasonable concessions. >> name one republican in
1:12 am
congress who is willing to make any changes to gun control? >> there are a lot of -- it's not a matter of democratic and republican issue. >> the biggest obstacle is john boehner. john boehner who was humiliated in the fiscal cliff situation, he needs a vote in the house where most of his republicans would not support it. and it's impossible to imagine that happen. >> so what do you think will happen? >> the obama administration will tee it up, do executive action and bring it to 2014. i do think they believe that the politics shifted enough, they can make some republicans pay a price that they would not even be willing to vote. >> but remember, in 1994, the assault weapons bill passed and the democrats got mauled at the polls after that. and a lot of people remember that, especially in the west and the south. and you're right, margaret, a lot of democrats don't want to touch this issue either. i'm just saying there is no
1:13 am
common ground, because the people who don't want gun control, they don't want gun control and recognize they will pay a price politically for supporting gun control. >> since 1994, there are not as many democrats in the conservative districts as there used to be. and i think we've seen some of the conservative democrats who exist moving in response to the shooting in connecticut. >> look, if you begin with the point that there is the possibility for no common ground, we'll get nowhere. >> what are the guidelines now on how far the government can go in restricting gun ownership -- >> very modest, i think margaret mentioned a couple of areas. but when you talk about the significant things that can be done, like banning assault weapons, president obama can't do that himself. guns are portable. this is very much a state issue. mayor bloomberg points this out all the time. new york and andrew cuomo can pass all the laws they want, but as long as guns are so easy to
1:14 am
get in north carolina and virginia, which they are, they will come up here and they will use these guns in crimes. unless the states regulate it, you will not have -- >> to that point, one of the programs in the bush administration, project x-files. they prosecuted under federal laws state violations because they were also violations of federal law what do they do? they ended up locking up local criminals in federal courts to get them off the streets and the carry rate diminished by 50%, there are things they can do now that would help gun control efforts that don't require passage of congress. >> it doesn't have to be either/or. if we conceded all that, we could say 40% of the guns are not bought by the shows, even all the best enforcement of the current laws wouldn't solve that problem. i think the most important meeting tomorrow is not the nra, it's walmart. walmart spmart is the potentialm
1:15 am
solver, why? they have an economic incentive to end the gun show loophole so people buy their guns at walmart. and if walmart gets behind the idea of saying that all guns have to be sold in a place where you can actually have a background check like walmart, that is a powerful ally for the president. >> you actually wrote a piece looking at the second amendment arguing that it is not quite what people think. >> well, it changed dramatically. you know, for a hundred years the idea that the second amendment gave anyone, an individual, a right to bear arms what as chief just berger said, was a fraud. they started making the argument that the second amendment does give individuals the right -- >> that it was only the militias. >> that it was only the militias. and in 2008, the supreme court agreed. they said yes, you do have an individual right. now the extent of that right has not been clarified. justice scalia says that individuals can have handguns in the home. but can they have them outside the home? can they have bigger weapons or
1:16 am
concealed carry laws? those are still up for grabs, and even if congress manages to pass something it is not all clear it is going to be declared constitutional. >> justice scalia also says that the second amendment does not guarantee anybody who wants a gun to have a gun any time, any place, anywhere they within a it. so even the most conservative supreme court justice says there are limits. >> thank you for following me and tweeting about this. there is a big interview coming up with america's top commander in afghanistan, general stanley mccrystal, we'll talk about gun control with him and the war in afghanistan as it now stands, we'll be right back.
1:17 am
1:18 am
1:19 am
no shortage of good reasons tonight for the "ac360" interview featuring america's top commander in afghanistan, president obama's choice, chuck takal, to run the pentagon, president obama pulling out all troops by 2014, not leaving any military presence behind. that idea was floated at the white house earlier this week. we'll also talk to general
1:20 am
stanley mcchrystal about that, also talk about his new memoir, my share of the task. but i wanted to begin by asking general mcchrystal about the weapons he used during his long career and whether civilians ought to be able to use weapons. you made headlines talking about gun control. what is your view when you see these military-style weapons in the hands of civilians? >> i spent a lifetime of carry weapons, and they fire a round at 3,000 feet per second. and when it hits human flesh it is devastating, designed to be that way. and that is what i want soldiers to carry. but i don't want those weapons around our schools, i don't want them on our streets. i think that if we can't -- it is not a complete fix to just address assault weapons. but i think if we don't get very serious now when we see children being buried, then i can't think of a time when we should. >> so you don't buy the argument that the only good answer to a bad guy with a gun is good guy
1:21 am
with a gun? >> i don't, and i think it is time we have a serious discussion about it, and not an either/or discussion, it is not a question of no guns at all in america or all guns. >> nobody is talking about taking away all guns. >> right. exactly. it has to be about weapons i'm not comfortable having around my family. >> let's talk about afghanistan, the idea floated earlier this week made a lot of headlines. the idea that there would be no troops after 2014, it is being considered from 15,000 to 16,000. can you foresee from a military standpoint, not a political standpoint, where there could be no u.s. troops after 2014? >> i think that i certainly wouldn't try to second guess what commanders on the ground are analyzing right now. but i would say that first when i arrived in 2002 in afghanistan, pretty early after the fall of the taliban, the country was devastated physically and traumatized psychologically. it was literally a basket case, didn't know what was up.
1:22 am
and normal was before 1978, that was 24 years at the time. people couldn't remember normal. they made a lot of progress. there are girls in school. there is progress, greater security in places like helmut. there is progress, it is imperfect. now they're scared. they're scared of 2014 because there is a lot to lose now, and they had chaos for 34 years, and the afghan people don't want to lose it. i think what the afghan people want from the u.s. and the west is strategic partnership, not numbers of people, but it's a relationship that gives them the confidence that we are enough of a partner that if they need our help, not thousands of troops, maybe not even billions of dollars. >> but some sort of presence. >> some sort of presence and some relationship. >> but how do you have that relationship when you have afghan soldiers, afghan police killing u.s. nato forces and
1:23 am
utilize personnel, there is a huge amount of distrust, probably more than there has ever been. >> there is an awful lot of distrust, we have to work through that. >> the whole program is based on the idea of building up afghan security forces. and yet now we stop going on patrols with these guys. >> for a period they did. but in reality, again, if you use the anecdote, to prove, sometimes it is not true. the wider story, sometimes you have been there, there is an awful lot that is good, disappointing. but we have to look at it, it is so complex to take one narrow part would be incorrect. >> your strategy was counter insurgency strategy, protect the population, build up the central government, as well. extend the power of the central government out to areas where it had not been traditionally and go after the taliban. defeat the taliban, not just degrade them. defeat them. that is not the strategy
1:24 am
anymore. the whole counter insurgency strategy seems to have gone by the wayside. it is now just limit al-qaeda, and build up security forces. is that -- i don't hear people talk about winning these days. >> when i was in iraq, particularly with special operations i was in charge of a very kinetic part of of the operation against al-qaeda and iraq. >> right, and a lot of your book focuses on that, it is actually very fascinating. >> right, when i got to afghanistan, i realized that the taliban is not this national liberation front, waiting for people to come rescue them. they're extraordinarily unpopular and mistrusted because of how poorly they governed before, and how extreme they are. what they want is a reasonable legitimate government, of course, they're struggling to have that. the right approach was to protect the afghanistan people and give them a reason to believe. >> but you go out on patrol with
1:25 am
these guys, last time i was out with the marines in helmand province, you would spend all day going out to some isolated village, to great risk to those on the ground, have a meeting with local elders. they had not seen the national leaders in a long time. and you go to kabul and there are afghan politicians building mcmansions, and you wonder where is the money going? >> it is hard, there were a lot of mistakes made. and when the united states entered, we didn't understand the country or the problems. if you went there today, it is not perfect. but progress gets made slowly in any society. and i think just because it is hard and takes a long time doesn't mean it is not important for america's strategic interest in the region, which is stability. >> but you can't do that. i mean the whole idea of building up the national
1:26 am
government and confidence, you can't do that without troops on the ground. and so where does -- i mean, if we're pulling out, whether it is we leave no troops, 6,000 troops or 15,000 troops, where is the mission? >> as i outlined in the book in 2009, when i asked president obama to approve more forces, they were really a bridge, to stop the taliban from gaining momentum, to secure our areas and grow the national security forces. they have had time, there has been progress, they have got a long way to go. but there has been a lot of progress. and i think it is time that the afghan forces and afghan government stand on its own as much as possible. they may need some help, but they can do an awful lot themselves. >> in the book you write about the trust between the military and the united states and the obama white house. and the distrust based on where it occurred early on, based on kind of the politics of the operation.
1:27 am
i don't want to misquote you, but basically you talked about -- look at my notes. the distrust, the the decisionmaking process in afghanistan. that is where the distrust was, the decisionmaking process. it was that, you don't go into too much detail on what that actually means, what does that mean? >> well, the term i used was lack of trust and a trust deficit. and the reason i used those was because i consider those a little different from mistrust, whenever you have a new organization, a new administration, any new administration it is a team that has to come together. it has to build links among itself and build trust over time. it comes in, and works with the department of defense and military. it takes time to build a team. it takes time to build trust. >> but you can build trust quickly if you feel the other person has your back and is not double-dealing or talking out of the other side of their mouth or leaking stuff to reporters. did you feel that the political apparatus understood what you wanted? understood the military? >> i'm not sure you can build trust as quickly as you say. i think you build trust when you
1:28 am
speak the same language. when you think about it, civilians and military grew up in slightly different cultures and it takes a while to grow together. look at president lincoln at the beginning of the civil war. it took him quite a while to grow comfortably as commander in chief, and it took the generals he led quite awhile to grow and mature. arguably, it was probably 1863 before those two elements became an effective team. >> do you think the trust is now better than it was when you came? >> i think it has grown, maturation of the players. one thing i would stress more is building trust between civilian leadership, my command and other parts of the military? >> was it a mistake to go for the counter insurgency? it required a large number of troops. there were those who argued just focus on al-qaeda and drone strikes. do you have any doubts about it? do you wish you had been able to continue that strategy? >> well, to answer the second part, yes, i do. i thought a lot about it.
1:29 am
i am convinced it was absolutely the right strategy. it was the only strategy, we had to win the support of the afghan population. they're not just the prize, they're the point of it all. >> but have we won the support of it all? again, you have these meetings, and these guys are on the fence. they say you leave tonight, the taliban comes back tomorrow. >> if i am a 50-year-old afghan living there, and americans come in, and they say we want you to do this. but the taliban come at night, i don't have a choice. i have to be scared. i have to hedge my bets, and an awful lot of afghans have been put in that position. only when there is enough security that they can be protected and their government grows enough in legitimacy that they can believe in it do they have a strong ability. so it is very difficult to judge afghans who act very rationally, we think well, why wouldn't they fall in completely with the government? they're in a position very hard to do that. >> it is a fascinating book, i
1:30 am
really appreciate you coming on and talking about it. >> thanks, and i appreciate it. coming up, a wife's plea for her missing husband. a former fbi agent who disappeared in iran five weeks ago, his wife shows pictures that were e-mailed to her anonymously. who does she think is holding him hostage?
1:31 am
1:32 am
1:33 am
now a startling story. tonight, the family of bob
1:34 am
levinson, a retired fbi agent who has been missing for six years wants you to see photographs e-mailed to them almost two years ago. they want them to be public because they are concerned the man they love is forgotten. imagine if you were the loved one, holding the sign, saying i am here in guantanamo, do you know where it is? in each picture, a different message. the english is crude. this is the result of serving america for 30 years, why you can't help me. or simply help me. this one seems to reference how long levinson has been missing, fourth year, you can't or you don't want? mr. levinson never returned from a 2007 trip to iran's kish island. his family said he was working as a private investigator looking into cigarette smuggling. in 2010, his family received this proof of life video, it, too, was sent anonymously with no demand or explanations. the story has gotten media
1:35 am
coverage. last year the family plastered times square with missing posters. mahmoud ahmadinejad was in town at the time for u.n. meetings. he hinted that levinson may have been in iranian custody. >> i remember that last year american and intelligence groups had a meeting, but i have not followed up on it. i thought they had come to some kind of an agreement. >> the u.s. officials believe levinson is being held somewhere in southwest asia, but they have not said exactly where. christina levinson said she believes it is in iran. i spoke to her a short time ago. you received these photos in april of 2011. why did you choose to release them now? >> what i want people to know is there is still a hostage in iran, and that is my husband, bob levinson. >> you have no doubt he is held in iran? >> i do not. >> what makes you so sure?
1:36 am
>> bob went to kish island for a 24-hour visit. and he has not been seen since he left there. >> that is iranian territory. >> less than a month -- right. and less than a month after that, after he went missing on march 9th, there was an article in an iranian-sanctioned newspaper, "press tv," that said that bob was in custody and he would be released in a couple of days but that has not happened. >> and has the iranian government ever communicated with you? because in a statement yesterday, an iranian spokesman said "levinson is not in iran. there is no seng single evidenct he is in iran." >> well, yes, i have talked to them. and there may be no evidence that he is in iran. there is also no evidence that he is not. we have not heard or seen anything. >> how closely is the state department working with you? what are they telling you?
1:37 am
>> well, the state department is trying to resolve this through diplomatic channels. unfortunately, i feel that they need to be much more vocal about the case in order to get bob home safely. >> how are you holding up? i mean, you and the rest of the family. i know your oldest daughter is getting married in february. just day to day, how do you get through? >> we just keep working to get bob home, one day at a time. hopefully he will be home as soon as possible. i would like it to happen tomorrow. so would the rest of my family. but it hasn't yet. but we keep hoping it will be tomorrow. >> were the photos sent directly to you? >> yes, to my e-mail. >> i got to just ask, when you opened up that e-mail, what was that like to see that? >> it was heartbreaking and yet good, because it -- it indicated that he is alive.
1:38 am
and we had had very little proof before we received these pictures, and the video. we had none. >> this broadcast is seen around the world. if there is anybody involved watching this or if your husband is in some way able to watch this is there anything you want to get across? >> well, i want bob to know that we love him and we miss him every day, and we will never stop looking for him. please stay well so that we can get you home safely. >> and i guess some people might ask why you waited so long to release the photos. what was the thinking on not releasing them earlier? >> well, the photos came to us, but there was no indication of what we were supposed to do with them, why we received them. what they wanted as a result of giving us these pictures. and so we chose to hold on to them because they are very disturbing. and i -- at the time, we thought it would be best. now, we need the public to know
1:39 am
that he is still a captive. >> christina levinson, i'm so sorry for what you and your family are going through, and we'll continue to follow this. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> imagine that nightmare. six full years. still ahead, details about lance armstro armstrong's alleged intimidation of his teammates and others who tried to expose the truth about doping on the u.s. postal team. plus, he is getting ready to confess to doping, doing an oprah interview next week. how much will actually come out from that interview? we'll talk about it ahead. +3+3+3
1:40 am
1:41 am
1:42 am
1:43 am
360 follow-up now. we know that oprah winfrey will interview lance arm strong, aired january 15th. it is being called a no-holds barred interview, abut will he address the issues that destroyed his career? but will he actually confess to doping in detail? it will be his first interview since he was stripped of his seven titles and banned for life from cycling. but how much detail and how much follow-up questioning will there be on the details that already emerged about the doping. that's something we have to wait and see. he's not the only one speaking out. the head of the anti-doping agency is also talking. in an interview with cbs, he talked about armstrong's history
1:44 am
and how the cycling superstar intimidated others to keep them quiet? >> was lance armstrong involved in intimidating other riders to keep them quiet? >> he was, it was tough, all the others were scared of the repercussions of them simply telling the truth. >> what could lance armstrong do to them. >> incinerate them. >> they laid out the case against armstrong last fall in hundreds of pages of documents, including eyewitness testimony from others. betsy andrews husband, frankie, rode with armstrong on the u.s. postal team was one of the first to testify against armstrong. it took tremendous courage. betsy joins me along with "new york times" juliet mckcurr. >> betsy, in the intro, we heard him talk about the threats, and intimidation. even death threats. to anyone else it may sound crazy. but you actually lived this. you yourself, said that lance armstrong tried to destroy you
1:45 am
after you testified five years ago to hearing him admit to taking drugs. what did he do? >> well, e-mail accounts were hacked. and i filed a police report. we went through -- we hired attorneys so we could discover who hacked into our e-mail account. we spent thousands of dollars. we got nowhere because a virginia court doesn't have to comply with michigan subpoena. frankie got a text in spanish from lance which said caution. >> frankie is your husband? >> yes, yes, i received numerous phone calls throughout the years. they have stopped in the past couple of years. and it is just the threat of we see what lance has done with other people, whether it is with us.
1:46 am
and the loss of jobs with frankie getting -- having his career completely derailed because he refused to get in a doping program along with lance. >> what is amazing, as you read the reports of these investigations and the evidence that has come out, and the things that you have said and so many other people have now finally testified to, i mean, the public image that lance armstrong has created of himself seems at such odds to what so many other people in his circle have experienced over the years. >> well, that is true. but that is because he created the perception and the reality were completely different. so what the person you see is the image he wants you to see, he is a chameleon, i have said this before. if he wants you to like him, and if you're a member -- if you're an influential member of the media or a politician, or if
1:47 am
you're wealthy and he can use you, he is going to be very charming. and if he wants to send a message and bully you, then he can be very intimidating, and very, very mean. >> juliette, you broke the news last week that armstrong was considering whether to admit to doping what do you think he is going say to oprah? juliette, do you think this is kind of a full admission interview, or how do you think he is going to play this? >> well, that really depends on your definition of full admission. we're hearing it will be an admission, how big the admission will be is up to anyone's guess. but will he detail all his doping, his secret blood transfusions, the needles in the arm that he took for epo, all of those things, and will he talk about people like betsy and her husband, frankie, who he tried to crush because they dared to say that he was doping. i really don't think that oprah is going to get into that in her
1:48 am
interview. >> betsy, i heard you laughing, i know you have those similar doubts. my question is, how detailed will oprah get in her questioning, because if you read the reports the details are so damning, and i would be curious to hear about any of the allegations, betsy, do you think this will be a cakewalk for him? >> i presume it will be. and i base that on the interview that oprah did with marion jones, where she didn't know the sport well enough. she didn't know the doping that went in track and field, in order to ask the tough questions or the follow-up questions. and as well, in april of 2011, oprah welcomed and embraced lance on to her program, when lance was under a federal criminal investigation. and never asked him about it. she embraced him all the time.
1:49 am
and if oprah did -- he was on her show a number of times. and if oprah did ask the question, i think she just took him at face value, despite the fact that there were books written on lance's doping. and there was the detail, a lot of what has come out now is not new. a lot is new. but there is a lot of stuff also that has been out there. it is just -- the question is why has it taken so long to get out here. and the fact that he chose somebody like oprah instead of going on to "60 minutes," i think speaks volumes, as well. >> it is interesting, juliette, i don't know what kind of response you have gotten based on your reporting. and you have been out in front of this. every time we do this, i get inundated by tweets saying leave lance armstrong alone. he has done so much. do people -- do you find there is still a huge groundswell of people who just don't believe that he doped? >> i actually do, believe it or not after all the reporting we have done about his doping and
1:50 am
the 11 teammates who came forward. >> because you can't read the hundreds of pages of documents and not see there is a lot of smoke there. and there is fire. >> i think people don't want to know. those people who saw him as an inspiration for their fight against cancer or their -- maybe their family member's fight against cancer, they just don't want to know. and i'm not sure they will be tuning in at all. but next thursday we'll hear something from lance, whether it is a full admission where he has tears and all those things that make him seem contrite. i'm not sure if that will happen. but it is a first step in the american people seeing that he actually lied to the american public, to the world and america for a decade. >> we thank you for joining us, we'll see how it goes, thank you so much. >> thanks anderson. >> you're welcome. >> we'll be watching. coming up, you bailed them out, then after thanking you for the tens of billions of dollars, aig said they may sue the government. in other words, you may end up
1:51 am
paying even more.
1:52 am
1:53 am
1:54 am
hi there, i'm susan hendricks, more from anderson in a moment. boston's mayor has declared a public health emergency due to the flu. since october 1st there have been 700 confirmed cases in the city, that's more than they faced in all of last year's flu season. >> the board of aig has decided not to join a lawsuit against taxpayers over the bailout that
1:55 am
saved the company from bankruptcy in 2008. the board says the reasons behind that decision will become clear through court filings in the coming weeks. and dallas owner mark cuban has been fined $50,000 over a tweet criticizing nba officiating. he tweeted he failed miserably in his attempt to fix the officiating in this league. anderson, back to you. susan, thank you, reports of a lion on the loose in north virginia turned out to be exaggerated.
1:56 am
1:57 am
1:58 am
1:59 am
time now for the ridiculous list. nothing like a good midweek lion on the loose story to get everyone excited. in norfolk, virginia, several people called 911 to say a lion was roaming the streets. >> 911, what is your emergency? >> i would like to report a lion sighting. >> i just saw an animal that looked like a small lion, had had the mane and everything. >> a baby lion, on 50th street. >> and there was a lion that ran across the street, a baby lion. >> okay, where -- >> it was about the size of a labrador retriever. >> so police called the virginia zoo the make sure the lions were all accounted for, which they were. and turns out that last caller was really on to something, because the reason the lion was about the size of a labradoor retriever, was bau

Anderson Cooper 360
CNN January 10, 2013 1:00am-2:00am PST

News/Business. (2013) (CC)

TOPIC FREQUENCY Afghanistan 8, Iran 8, Lance 7, Virginia 5, Lance Armstrong 5, Frankie 5, Levinson 4, Taliban 4, Nra 4, New York 3, Fbi 3, San Antonio 3, John Boehner 2, Margaret 2, Christina Levinson 2, Scalia 2, Bob Levinson 2, Walmart 2, Betsy 2, Postal Team 1
Network CNN
Duration 01:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Virtual Ch. 759 (CNN HD)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 1920
Pixel height 1080
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 1/10/2013